This site is intended for modern browsers. It is accessible in any browser, but may not appear correctly in some browsers.

Skip this menu | Skip to content

Calendar News Contact Us Home AMDG
JR Billiken Store

News

STUCO holds last forum of year

The St. Louis U. High Student Council (STUCO) hosted its final quarterly forum of the year last Thursday in the Joseph Schulte Theater. Both the current STUCO officers as well as next year’s elected officers sat on the stage to host the forum. The agenda included discussions of the changes made to the STUCO constitution, the school’s alcohol policy, and student involvement on committees.

The outgoing senior officers sat in the back, allowing the newly elected juniors to run most of the meeting. About 30-40 students were in attendance, as well as principal Mary Schenkenberg. Attendance was down from previous meetings because the forum was moved from Tuesday to Thursday last week and because of a fine arts field trip.

STUCO President-elect Paul Merrill opened the forum by outlining the new positions provided for by STUCO’s new constitution. As opposed to this year, next year’s STUCO will have three representatives from each of the freshman, sophomore, and junior classes, as well as nine senior officer positions (to go along with homeroom representatives). Six of the senior positions will be “student body? positions, representing the entire school. The other three senior positions will report only to the senior class. The six student body officers will delegate responsibilities to the class officers. Merrill said that one of the reasons for the constitution change was “to hold everyone accountable for what they are doing and to better streamline Student Council.?

One crowd member questioned the removal of one of the junior positions for next year, saying that it would take away experienced members from STUCO. Merrill responded, saying, “As a student council, we came up with the conclusion that the job (of governing the junior class) could be done with three people. We didn’t need more (positions), so we took away one junior and added one sophomore and freshman position.? Merrill also noted that “The secretary/treasurer position this year didn’t really do that much, so (STUCO) decided that three people can get it done.?

Sophomore Jim Santel said that he didn’t believe there was enough student involvement in the changing of the constitution.

ASC teacher and assistant STUCO moderator Mike Herman responded, “For the amount of small changes that were made in the constitution, there was a tremendous amount of input that came from every aspect.? Herman also said that the changing of the constitution was a “fluid process.?

Another crowd member raised the issue of whether underclassmen would be able to vote for the student body officer positions in the future. Merrill said, “This year it would have been (hard) because in order to have (school wide elections) we need to have a school assembly.?

STUCO moderator Brock Kesterson did say that school wide elections are a possibility, but a schoolwide assembly as well as campaigns would have to be organized in order for that to occur. Kesterson said, “In the future, that’s the idea. ... (STUCO) represents the (entire) school, (so) everybody should vote on it. Time didn’t allow for that this year, but it’s definitely something we plan on doing in the future.?

Vice President elect and current junior class pastoral officer Chris deBettencourt suggested that the junior class narrow down the field of student body officer candidates to two before the final school wide vote in order to combat a popularity vote among the underclassmen. Herman suggested that having the votes of the junior class count as two so that they have more say could also be a possibility for a school wide election.

Kesterson commented on the overall discussion of changing the election format, saying, “If there’s a problem, and we find that this structure is something that is completely worthless, and nobody likes it and it doesn’t work for the school, then we’re willing to change. That’s the idea.?

Senior Timo Kim then commented on the lack of student involvement and participation in the changing of the constitution, saying, “It seems kind of odd to me that a student government body would change its constitution using input from faculty when it’s a student body organization, not a faculty organization.?

Herman responded to Kim, saying, “The students were involved. The faculty, I think, offered the history perspective. You guys are only here for four years. The faculty that were involved (in the change) have been here a lot longer, and they gave us the insight. They didn’t play any role in changing it. If STUCO didn’t like the changes, they weren’t going to be made. The faculty in this case provided a small insight to what they saw. All the STUCO guys voted on it, and that’s how (the change) happened.?

Kim also asked whether there would be a more formal process in the future for changes in the constitution. Kesterson noted that a formal process was followed in order to change the constitution, because a 2/3 vote of STUCO members was required and received at a formal STUCO meeting.

Senior Pastoral Officer Dan Finucane also noted that by electing the Student Council, the student body did have a say in the changes of the constitution, because STUCO represents the student body. He also said that the changes to the constitution were “minor structure changes,? and that very few students have actually read the new constitution anyway.

Herman noted that “all the rules were followed? in the constitution change.

Junior Jack Hart defended the new constitution, saying, “I like it a lot.?

DeBettencourt then moved the forum to the second item on the agenda: SLUH’s policy on alcohol. DeBettencourt said that the main questions over SLUH’s policy have come from its treatment of its misrepresentation on the Internet (specifically on Facebook). DeBettencourt, directing his question to Schenkenberg, asked what kind of punishment would occur if a student were to be pictured with alcohol, or if alcohol were to be blurred out of a picture with a student on the Internet. Schenkenberg did not answer, suggesting instead that the letter concerning Internet misrepresentation released to parents last January be read again, and that STUCO meet with Assistant Principal for student affairs H. Eric Clark.

DeBettencourt also suggested that changes be made to the Parent-Student Handbook concerning alcohol on the Internet.

Schenkenberg said, “I’d be happy to talk with Mr. Clark about that.?

Senior Cliff Leek questioned another part of the alcohol policy, the seemingly vague wording of the punishments described in the Parent-Student Handbook. “I think we need to have a more defined punishment for (alcohol abuse) because when you have (weak wording) it results in different students being punished in different ways, which is unjust in my opinion,? Leek said.

DeBettencourt said that different punishments for different students are appropriate, because there are “different levels? of infractions that can occur, and it would be unfair to punish every student in the same way for less serious offenses.

Another crowd member said that he thought the school’s alcohol policy for athletics was also weak, citing that a first offense for baseball will result in a two-game suspension, and a first offense for track only results in a one-meet suspension. The student said that a more harsh first offense for athletics would help to prevent a first infraction.

Merrill said later, “I think (the policy) is fine,? but he also said that Athletic Director Dick Wehner, not Mr. Clark, makes the decisions about athletic punishments.

The question of the use of breathalyzers at school events also arose. A student suggested that breathalysers should be used more publicly to act as a deterrent. Merrill said, “I think we should (breathalyze) more publicly. I think at Sno Ball we did everyone, and I think that was good. Maybe it’s harder to do at the mixers, but if we do it once every so often, I think people will (stop).?

Herman noted that, “No SLUH guys have been a problem? so far at mixers and dances with regard to alcohol abuse.

Sports Officer Connor Cole ran the third portion of the forum, which discussed the topic of student involvement on committees. Similar to the criticism of STUCO for the lack of student involvement in the constitution change, the administration has also been questioned for the lack of a legitimate student perspective on some of its committees.

Cole said that he would like to “expand student input? on some committees.

Schenkenberg said that the administration is in the process of selecting a junior to be on the academic affairs committee. However, she also said, “I don’t know how appropriate it is on some committees for students to be present.?

Cole suggested that students be involved in the selection of new courses and curriculum changes, as well as the selection of the summer reading books.

After the floor was opened for general questions, sophomore Will Hartzler lambasted STUCO for not making a master calendar of events of all SLUH clubs as they had promised to do. To solve the problem, Hartzler boldly stood up and revealed his own self-made master calendar and handed it to Schenkenberg.

Junior Ben Brooks then voiced his concern over the general arrogance and bullying that goes on in school, but his comments were cut short as the bell rang, ending STUCO’s fourth quarterly forum.

“I thought it went really well,? Merrill said.

Published: June 14, 2006 | By: Charlie Landis | Categories: News Section, Students
Recent News
Archived News...

 

Back to the top of the page

Directory Menu:

A to Z Guide to SLUH Departments Directory Faculty/Staff Directory Search